Creation Science Rebuttals

Stasis

One of the featured articles in the fossils
section of Kent Hovind's website, Creation Science Evangelism, talks about
the idea that the fossil record appears to show that organisms are in
stasis...they do not change over millions of years.1
This article is written by Bruce Malone.

From the most simplistic approach, Malone is right.
Fossils do indicate statis. However, stasis is not proof against
evolution. Evolutionary theory accounts for the possibility of an
organism to not evolve further. Evolution does not equal constant
change. It lives by the old adage, "Don't fix it if it ain't broke."

Malone goes on to discuss several theories, such as
slow change through mutation, and fast change via punctuated equilibrium.
I don't know which is right, nor does it matter. Since stasis is a
normal part of evolution, the slow change is OK. Since transitional
fossils are missing from the rapid change (punctuated equilibrium) this is
OK too. Although there may be problems with both, there remains the
possibility that either could be right.

(As a progressive creationist, I do not believe in
evolution. However, since you can believe in evolution, and accept the
Bible literally, and as inerrant, there is no problem if one wants to
believe in theistic evolution.)

Finally, Malone uses the now famous quote (at least
in young earth creation science circles) of their being no transitional
forms. It should be noted that there are indeed transitional form
candidates, as Answers in Genesis points out. That is why Answers in
Genesis lists the argument of transitional fossils as one that creationists
should not use.